100 intending to provide a detailed definition of this mechanism, the Court understands that family businesses are, by definition, those in which several members of a family group retain control of a company, but the administration, the assets, and the family remain as three distinct areas of the family business. Consequently, there is no basis for understanding that whenever there is a family business, a possible merging of assets occurs; especially when, as has been proved in this case, the share composition is complex (supra para. 65) because the direct shareholders of RCTV are other companies. 352. Based on the above, the Court will not analyze the possible violation of the right to property of RCTV owing to the seizure of its assets, since RCTV is a legal person. Consequently, this Court will merely examine the presumed effect that the interim measures could have had directly on the assets of the shareholders; in other words, on the shares they own. Nevertheless, the Court considers it necessary to emphasize that the decision it takes should have no impact on the damage that may be declared in the domestic sphere owing to the seizure of the assets owned by RCTV, or on the impact on the possible reparations that could be awarded directly to the legal person on that basis. 3. The possible harm to the value of the shares owned by the RCTV partners 353. The Court has already indicated that domestic laws grant shareholders specific direct rights such as to receive the agreed dividends, to attend and vote during general assemblies and to receive part of the company’s assets when it is liquidated. 374 354. In this case, the file before the Court does not show that there was any limitation to the management rights of the shareholders, such as those relating to their participation in the shareholders general assemblies. However, the possible violation of the right to property of the presumed victims has been alleged as a result of the loss of value of their shares owing to the non-renewal of the concession for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum and the interim measures imposed on RCTV’s assets. 355. In this regard, in the case of Chaparro v. Ecuador, the Court considered that, since Mr. Chaparro held 50% of the shares of the company and was its manager, it was “clear that a value could be placed on this participation in the company’s shares, which formed part of its owner’s property from the moment it was acquired. As such, this participation constituted an asset to which Mr. Chaparro had the right to use and enjoyment.”375 The Court recalls that, in the instant case, the relationship between the presumed victims of this harm and the company affected is not direct (supra para. 65), which makes it difficult to make an assumption about the possible harm to the shares. Indeed, the Court reiterates that, in this case, it has found proved that the presumed victims are shareholders of legal entities or separate autonomous assets (supra para. 65) that, in turn, are shareholders or owners of a chain with between one and five other legal entities until it reaches the company, RCTV C.A. Consequently, the Court considers that this complex shareholding, resulting from a wide-ranging structure of legal entities with separate assets, makes it even more difficult to be able to establish a direct and clear relationship between the alleged loss of share value and the harm to the patrimony of the legal entity, RCTV. 356. Furthermore, in the case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela,376 the Court indicated that it was necessary to prove how the harm to the assets owned by “Globovisión” resulted in harm to the rights of the company’s shareholders and, since it did not find that this harm had been 374 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, para. 127, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 400. 375 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador, para. 182. 376 Cf. Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 402.